Sri. Vinay Prasad Vs the Managing Director, Bmtc

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.2.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.2076/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU(SCCH-11),

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 09.02.2024 passed in MVC No.2076/2023 on the file of the I Additional Small Cause Judge and ACMM and Member - MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH – 11), for enhancing the compensation.

¶26

Heard the arguments of both sides. The ranks

¶27

of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶28

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an

¶29

accident on 27.03.2023 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.6,24,606/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred this appeal mainly contending that the petitioner sustained fracture injuries which are grievous in nature. He also examined the doctor, who assessed the right lower limb disability at 42% and the whole body disability at 21%. But the Tribunal erred in taking the disability at 12%. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.16,000/- which is on the lower side. The doctor stated that the petitioner requires another surgery for removal of the implants and estimated the cost of the same as Rs.40,000/- but the Tribunal has granted meager amounts. Therefore, he requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that

¶34

as the fractures are united, the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 12% and also granted

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

reasonable amount under other heads and it is to be confirmed.

¶38

Though the petitioner stated that he was working as a delivery boy and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2023, his notional income was rightly taken by the Tribunal as Rs.16,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and it is confirmed. He was aged 28 years and the relevant multiplier applicable is 17.

¶39

The Petitioner filed Ex.P6 - wound certificate and Ex.P8 - discharge summary. He has examined the doctor as PW2 who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. He stated that the petitioner sustained a comminuted displaced fracture of the proximal third of the tibia and a displaced transverse fracture of the fibula. He underwent surgery in the form of CRIF with IMIL Nailing of the tibia under SA. The petitioner complains of :

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

i) Pain and difficulty in walking and climbing stairs.

¶43

ii) He gives history of inability to squat and sit cross legged.

¶44

iii) He gives history of inability to work as a courier delivery boy.

¶45

On examination the following complaints are found:

¶46

i) He walks with pain and limping.

¶47

ii) Diffuse swelling of right knee and leg is seen.

¶48

iii) Surgical scars are seen over right knee and leg.

¶49

As per x-ray, it shows united fracture (delayed

¶50

union) of the tibia with implant in situ and a malunited fracture of the fibula. The doctor assessed the total disability of the right lower limb at 42% and that of the whole body at 21%. He further stated that the petitioner requires another surgery for removal of the implants and estimated the cost of the same as Rs.40,000/-. Considering the medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability as one-third of 42% ie., 14%. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

comes to Rs.16,000/- x 12 x 17 x 14% = Rs.4,56,960/- .

¶54

The Tribunal has granted Rs.1,04,726/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 and it is confirmed. He was in hospital as an inpatient for a period of 3 days. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.55,000/- for pain and suffering and it is confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have done any other work at least for a period of 4 months. Therefore, Rs.64,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 4) is granted towards loss of income during laid up period. As per the medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶55

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶56

is as below:

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Particulars	Amount
	in Rs.
Loss of future earning capacity	4,56,960
Pain and suffering	55,000
Loss of amenities	25,000
Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000
Loss of income during laid up period	64,000
Medical Expenses	1,04,726
Future Medical Expenses	40,000
Total	7,75,686

¶60

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶61

total compensation of Rs.7,75,686/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶62

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

ii. The judgment and award dated 09.02.2024 passed in MVC No.2076/2023,

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

by I Additional Small Cause Judge and ACMM and Member - MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH – 11), is modified;

¶69

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,75,686 /- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.6,24,606/granted by the tribunal.

¶70

iv. The respondent-Managing Director, BMTC has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, the respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,51,080/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶71

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:20249 MFA No. 1285 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

v. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶74

vi. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delay period of 275 days as per the order on I.A.No.1/2025 dated 10.04.2026.

¶75

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶76

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. Vinay Prasad v. the Managing Director, Bmtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vinay Prasad v. the Managing Director, Bmtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pavithra K .P Vs Mr.Ananda K.C.

Smt. Shilpa Vs Kumar D.

Moose Kunhi Beary Vs Mahammad Azaruddeen

Smt. Ramya v Vs Sri Sudheer T C

Mr Narayanaswamy G N Vs Mr Gunashekar T

Khan Sab Vs G Sushma Kedar